I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Hi Denis. I dropped by to tell that your recent edits to Ukraine#History are highly questionnable and POV-like. Please cite your sources immediately, or I'm going to revert your edits. Not only they contradict to my (vast local) knowledge, but also indirectly support the pro-Russian and separatist-driven POV - which is unuseful and inflammatory here on WP. Anyway, I know few guys who would revert your contributions there ASAP, not waiting for your explanations. Best wishes, Ukrained 22:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Denis, I see your logic and don't find your edit particularly offensive or anti-Ukrainian. As you may expect, people of different views gather here and when you add the info someone might not like, you have to be prepared to back it up with sources.

As for the particular edit, I think the corrections you made are within reason but not perfect. The second one, about the War is totally on the mark. The first one, about the famine is a little more complicated. You see, this is the article about the History of UA and not the History of the USSR. As such, adding that Russia suffered too in the form you did distorts the balance. The fact is that millions of Ukrainians died due to the criminal Soviet policies. In the USSR article we will write from the Soviet-wide perspective. This one should concentrate more on Ukraine.

Besides, there are two major views on the Ukrainian famine (aside from the lunatic view that it didn't happen at all). One view is that it was a result of specifically anti-Ukrainian policies of the Stalinist government with some scholars subscribing to this view. The other view is that Stalin's policy, being anti-peasant, affected Ukraine disproportionately simply because this was a more agri-cultural nation and some scholars subscribe to this view. You could read more about the debate at the discussion of the Holodomor article as well as in the Holodomor article itself. The latter is being far from optimal or balanced either and several editors are now having the conflicting opinions about the article.

Finally, since you are interested in Russian and Ukrainian topics, please check the Russia portal and Ukraine portal at Wikipedia. They would help you to get an idea of the coverages of these two countries. Please check the links to the notice boards at the portals, especially to "new article announcement boards" wich are worth adding to your Wikipedia watchlist. Regards, --Irpen 07:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your voting on my RFA. It has finished with the result 88/14/9, and I am promoted. I am really overwhelmed with the amount of support I have got. With some of you we have edited many articles as a team, with some I had bitter arguments in the past, some of you I consider to be living legends of Wikipedia and some nicks I in my ignorance never heard before. I love you all and I am really grateful to you.

If you feel I can help you or Wikipedia as a human, as an editor or with my newly acquired cleaning tools, then just ask and I will be happy to assist. If you will feel that I do not live up to your expectation and renegade on my promises, please contact me. Maybe it was not a malice but just ignorance or a short temper. Thank you very much, once more! abakharev 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi DennisRS. There is an ongoing discussion on Talk:Michael_Jackson#Nicknames on how to deal with this issue. It appears to be coming close to a compromise. It is my hope that we would remove both nicknames from the opening paragraph and include them (with some explaination) further down in the article. Please read through that section and add any comments you like. Monkeyman(talk) 23:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing 'Wacko Jacko' from the opening paragraph of the Michael Jackson article. A consensus has been reached on the talk page to keep the nickname. Funky Monkey 00:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Words from You "in my opinion" from Your last message at Talk are not "consensus" yet.

Hello DenisRS! As you were unhappy with the previous more informal consensus on inclusion of "Wacko Jacko" as a feature of the lead of the article, I am now carrying out a more formal vote on the subject at Jackson's talk page. Please vote as I know this issue is important to you. Your voice counts! --Manboobies 03:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I appreciate the amount of time you put to write it and I am sorry to tell you that I simply don't have time for lengthy political discussions online. It would be interesting to discuss politics over a beer or something, if we ever meet, but our goal here is editing the encyclopedia. Let's stick to it and use the talk pages to discuss the articles. Please don't be put off and don't consider me rude. I simply have too little time for long emails about politics. Thanks for your understanding. If you need help with editing, feel free to ask. Счастливо! --Irpen 22:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I am totally all right with no further discussion going. I just wanted to be sure that the mail got delivered and that You now have chance to look at gas problem in the way of actual information, not misinformation of most of Western media. DenisRS 00:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Denis, when you update the numbers in the articles, please cite the sources of the new numbers you entered. CIA factbook is a source. If you claim it's less precise than another source you used, please cite yours in the article. Thanks, --Irpen 21:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I added links in the body of "economics" section, figures are from there. And, of course, those are relevant figures, comparing to last years out-of-the-blue guessings by CIA. New figures are based on new actual official statistics data for 2005. DenisRS 15:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:MJackson vitiligo 1.png. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. It looks from the watermark like this image came from wenn.com -- which is a commercial content provider with a very restrictive and aggressive copyright policy, and there is no compelling fair use case for this particular image, so I have deleted it. It looks like you initally tagged it as noncommercial and then tagged it as GFDL-presumed. The GFDL-presumed tag should only be used for old images that were uploaded before the license terms were made more explicit upon uploader; the initial uploader of an image should never use it. Please let me know if I was in error. Thanks, Mindspillage(spill yours?) 00:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't the comparison of the Raptor to the Sukhoi Su-37 or Su-27 be more appropriate than the Fulcrum? Or are you deliberately using the term "2D thrust vectoring" (where the Sukhoi's is much more capable than either the Flanker or the Raptor). ... aa:talk 19:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

In terms of maneuverability, only Mig-35 can compete to F-22, because ability to have quick start means more than somewhat better 2D vectoring of Su-35. By the way, Mig-35's 2D-vectoring works fine, as well as 1D-vectoring in F-22. DenisRS 06:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you perhaps find a better source for the letter? It just looks plain weird. For example, why would he put "Long live jihad and the mujahedeen (the insurgency)"? And "This is how you want your brother, son or leader to be ... and those who will lead you (in the future) should have the same qualifications. ", not to mention the periods where there shouldn't be periods. It just looks strange to me. dposse 02:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, relax. I didn't mean to offend you. I just thought a slightly better source would help to clear up any confusion in the future. If you think the source you gave is perfectly fine, then ok. dposse 13:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I assure you that no one is trying to be "manipulative." It just seems like what you want to add is unnecessary detailed for the lead. Only the main allegations really matter at that stage in the article; later on, we can be as thorough as we'd like.UberCryxic 23:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but without detalization readers get totally distorted impression of true merit of the allegations and its credibility. Please see the updated variant. DenisRS 23:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Phrases like "true merit of the allegations" and "credibility" are a bit dangerous in this case, mainly because Wikipedia makes no claims to truth. We're not here to convict or exonerate Michael Jackson; a jury has already done that. The only way that readers would get a distorted impression is if we somehow prevented that information from being included, but that doesn't apply again. I am merely suggesting that it might be a better idea if that information was included in the body of the article.UberCryxic 23:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Your latest edits actually go far beyond what you wanted initially. At this point it is a bit too much. I am going to give you an opportunity to revert yourself, otherwise I'm sure that other people will eventually.UberCryxic 23:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: please no more claims about the "credibility" of the charges. That's not up to you or I to decide. Wikipedia is not a court of law. We are only here to decide, in this context, whether the information presented in allegedly reputable sources merits inclusion in the lead.UberCryxic 23:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with UberCryxic. To be using phrases such as "true merit of the allegations" and "credibility" is wrong by wikipedia standards. That is not for us to decide. And I strongly agree that listing the charges in the lead is inappropriate, considering that there is a whole PAGE devoted to the trial, as well as a section lower down. Keep the detail for the trial page. Please don't amass information onto the Michael Jackson page to paint and then support it with peacock and weasel phrases to paint him as a bad man. That is not for you or I to decide, as long as we are active on wikipedia. --Paaerduag 01:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this getting rediculous. At no edit version there were or are phrases like "true merit of allegations" and "credibility". Wikipedia does not allow any estimations and judgements of the kind. However, by delibirately eliminating enumeration of claims against Jackson You just make readers think about *selected* allegations, which makes distorted picture.

And, of course, I am not here to "paint" Jackson. Readers should judge the merit of allegations by themselves, without you (or I) deciding for them that only molestation allegations should be named in the first part of article (what may lead them to conclusion that there were consistent, serious, and credible allegations in 1993 and 2003 -- and all of this only knowing part of allegations).

By the way, without telling to readers that the first allegations in 1993 came under the father who is registered swindler, the first segment of Jackson's article also gives distorted image to readers in this part, too. Let readers decide by themself whether to perceive those allegations seriously or not; but they have to know the information. Why You have to artifically change/manipulate readers' opinion by hiding information of them? All of my modifications are just few words so there is no point to argue here. If You prefer to move key facts of the allegations lower in the article, then there is no point to tell about allegations in the beginning of article at all, because readers may already make up their opininon on delibirately selective information, what it against of Wikipedia principles. DenisRS 09:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

There are no mentions of credibility in the actual statements, but there are mentions of credibility on your part as a reason for wanting to place the statements in the article. That's troubling in and of itself. We are giving readers the notable allegations in the lead. There were actually ten counts against Michael Jackson, including four lesser ones, and we cannot hope to do justice to all of them in the lead. Information like that is best reserved for the body. You keep bringing up manipulation and deception, which slightly worries me as you are not assuming good faith. We're not trying to mislead readers in any way. We're trying to give them a broad picture of Michael Jackson's life in the lead. That broad picture does not include hot air balloons. As Paaeduag explained in the last revert, you are flirting with a violation of 3RR. We are not opposed to having a conversation on this, but we must do so (hopefully) in the talk page of the article and see if we can come to some sort of agreements. Attempts to arbitrarily impose your own views and standards on other editors will only cause confrontation and heartache, so I urge you to please take this to the talk page if you think it is really important.UberCryxic 15:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sergeant'85.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 21:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Alexandros Grigoropoulos'2008.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

Thanks for uploading Image:Alexandros Grigoriadis'2008.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Genetically modified organism, as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I would like to outline my thoughts on the screen size of the new iPhone. While I thank you for your contributions, there are a few issues to notice. First, the geeky gadgets source makes no mention of "DVGA," or even "VGA". If this is a term you made up yourself, the sole contributor to DVGA, it is original research and unacceptable. Also, geeky gadgets only paraphrases information available at Gizmodo, which should be used instead; it seems like you are trying to unduly promote geeky gadgets. Also, forums (i.e. macrumors.com) do not qualify as reliable sources and may not be used in citations. Please also read WP:CRYSTAL. Unless you can, for starters, find a source that uses the term DVGA, the article will be deleted. I'm not trying to work against you, just work for the encyclopedia. HereToHelp(talk to me) 12:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

1. HVGA does not cite sources mentioning the term either, so before editing out my references or putting anything on deletion, please advice there (basic FIFO principle, which also Wikipedia's uniformity principle).

2. And it is not "original research" that would fit the description in WP. The resolution is 960x640 and it is DVGA independently of whoever's research. For example, putting resolution as 640x960 instead of 960x480 is also not an "original research", it is just "rephrasing". The meaning is the same, it is synonymous; nothing original is here.

3. And it is not that hard "to google" and see that the term DVGA is already exists: [1][2][3] (and obviously I have nothing to do with those pages). By the way, there (and elsewhere) are a lot of letter-labeled screen resolutions which still lack dedicated Wikipedia pages. And the lack of pages does not mean those acronyms do not exist or that pages could not be created when needed.

4. Source priority in the timeline is no basis for editing out information by any means of Wikipedia policy. "Geeky" is just the place where I found this information, that is it. If you have an earlier/prior source ("Gizmodo" or whatever) no one forbids you to add it or even replace the source I cited.

5. In the second edition there was no forum cited, so this notion is irrelevant. However, "WP: reliable sources" contains no notion against use of webforums (it is only forbidden in relation to "living person", and writing articles about webforums, which is not the case), so this source will be re-installed.

6. I do not think, of course, that you work against me or something; maybe just trying to "overmoderate", so to speak. DenisRS (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Then it's not notable, either. It should probably be merged somewhere or deleted. As a corollary to what you said in point 3, the presence of pages does not mean those acronyms exist or that pages should have been created.

2. Your example is a non sequitur. Adding a D to VGA is completely different than rearranging two numbers.

3. 1 is a wiki (unacceptable); the other two provide almost no information. I tried googling; "double VGA" seems to refer to two physical VGA ports more often than a resolution. We do not make two-sentence articles on every resolution in sight; we list them at Display resolution provided they have shown wp:notability.

4. I seem to recall edit summaries to that effect, but I could be mistaken and won't pursue the issue further.

5. macrumors.com qualifies as the type of source listed at WP:SPS. Anyone can post with no moderation; it is unacceptable. I don't understand what you mean by "second edition." Also keep in mind that these are unreleased prototypes and therefore inherently speculative, and I again point you to WP:crystal. The resolution of a prototype may be established, but if the term DVGA is not in use to describe it, the term should be removed.

6. Thank you for keeping calm as we try to resolve our differences. I was, perhaps, a little too accusatory in my first post. I have more experience on Wikipedia than you, but this does not make me automatically right. It only means that I have a better feel for the way things work and what is appropriate. HereToHelp(talk to me) 22:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

1. I did not create DVGA page as standalone (not worthy, I agree) -- I did the page as "disambiguation".

2. Anyway, I did not add the letter, the term exists. There is no way to slant it or deny it.

3. I googled DVGA and found out terms mentions. It is irrelevant to me where the term will be described. If you or anyone else will have time to move all of those QVGA, HVGA, DVGA pages information to one common, and then replace through all of the pages where those acronyms linked to separate pages with link to common page with "#"-sign, then it is fine. Then All of separate pages could be deleted. Not DVGA, though, because it refers to electronic amplifier, but yet this still a name for graphic resolution; disambiguation page should stay. As I noted above, I did not create standalone page for DVGA as resolution -- not worthy. And since HVGA pages links to sources where the term itself not used (though the term exist), then, obviously, DVGA is no less notable than HVGA.

5. I mean that later I edited the phrase in the article to leave out "MacRumours" source. This is what I call "second edition". Again: SPS does not forbid use of "MarRumours" at all, it is forbidden only when about living person; and I was "cautious" using it since I linked not to some random page where were just words; source includes photos/screenshots, so it is very well justified. Again: term HVGA (and others) is not used in the sources which linked from that page -- before deleting anything, you might want to start with like 10+ pages that exist and refer to resolution of products the same way.

Good luck if you will have time to rearrange all those pages I talked above on FIFO basis, but I suggest there are could be better variants how to spend the time. DenisRS (talk) 08:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You're arguments make no sense to me, and they are not upheld by Wikipedia policy, my googling, or logic.

1. Part of my confusion is that it does not follow the conventions associated with disambiguation pages.

2. Just because something exists on a handful of marginally reliable websites does not mean it is worthy of inclusion. The first item in a search for DVGA is the Delaware Valley Geographical Association, which is not wp:notable enough to warrant an article. None of the items refer to what you are searching for. Double-size VGA is equally unfruitful. You are disambiguating when there is no ambiguity.

3. Two wrongs don't make a right. We can fix pages that are wrong, not make more that are wrong. Furthermore, googling QVGA and WVGA produce relevant sources on the first page that you don't have to hunt for. These two resolutions are notable; DVGA is not; are there any others in your "10+" list?

5. I quote, "personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets—are largely not acceptable." There is no context of living people only; it applies to everything.

Would you suggest it is more productive to argue over it here? The other examples you point to are much more widely accepted than DVGA; there is no need to disambiguate it; and there is no connection with the iPhone in any reliable (or even unreliable) source. HereToHelp(talk to me) 14:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. The standardized deletion notice is below. HereToHelp(talk to me) 22:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated Double-size VGA, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double-size VGA. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. HereToHelp(talk to me) 22:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, stop with the nonsense already. There was no concept of nation state in 18th century Imperial Russia, so it's impossible assign "Russian" to Baltic Germans, particularly when certain provinces were autonomous. Every single source calls him Baltic German biologist, at best mentioning his birthplace was Russian Empire (but usually skipping even that). We will go with what the reliable sources state about him, not inserting random statements not supported by a single source. The version you are so furiously fighting does mention that his birthplace was a part of the Russian Empire, so what is the problem? --Sander Säde 19:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

1) "Russian" in this conceret case describes country of birth as well as main place of work, which is Russian Empire. "Baltic German" is ethnicity. That is totally different thing and ethnicity does not get attached to people the way you phrased it because it grossly deluding.

2) Different states of America have super autonomies, even have their own constitutions (that is why the states called States, not just any usual regions). This does not make Aaron Copland called "New Yorkian composer" or whatever because of the region he was born. He just "American composer" and that is it.

3) People do not get ascribed by their ethicity right around their names in writings about notable people. For example, Napoleon I is not called "Italian politician" (leader, etc) -- because that would be nonsensical. But it is, of course, always mensioned that he was of Italian ethnicity. The same is with Aaron Copland not being called "Jewish composer", but "American composer". Or Katherine The Great is not called "German politician" -- because it would be nonsense.

So your edition, which puts Baer as "Baltic German biologist", manipulates uneducated readers to think that there ever was some entity "Baltic Germany" -- is nonsensical. Even if late there somewhere buried in the text that Baer was born in Russian Empire, it only further confusers readers as to whether Baer moved from Russian Empire to somewhere or similar pointless matters. Thus my edition, which both directly points at Baer's ethnicity **and** does not delude people about the country to which he belonged, is the most accurate. DenisRS (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are so sure that "your version" is the correct one, why not come up with a single source supporting it? Or have you looked and failed to find such sources? Wikipedia works with sources, not feelings.

Or perhaps we should call Karl Ernst von Baer a German biologist? After all, he is born into German nobility in a German-administered governorate, is a German knight, went to German universities in Berlin and Würzburg, became a professor in the German university in the German city of Köningsberg, did all his major discoveries there - and all his writings were in German.

I will try yet another compromise version. I expect you to follow rules of Wikipedia - namely, no WP:OR, follow WP:NPOV and use WP:RS.

1) since Baer was born in Russian Empire, had, besides his ethnic name also Russian name (which should be added to the article, by the way), and worked so much for the country, there are, of course, many sources about him; there is no problem with links. I just do not see it necessary at all (but here is one of them, if you really want: [4]): there is no need for links that confirm someone calling Katherine the Great *Russian*, not German political figure. It not even serious to ask for such links; those are not necessary.

2) no, there is no way to call Baer German, because he was born **and** mostly worked in other county -- Russian Empire. Many Russian historic figures were not Russian in ethnicity and were not even writing in Russian (there were periods when aristocracy/scientists preferred to use Latin, then Dutch, then German, then French etc) but it does not change a thing. Most of Roman Empire famous figures of literature, philosophy, politics wrote not in Latin, but in Greek (choice of higher end nobility and aristocracy in Rome). Some were going to study in Greece regions (there was no Greece yet) and had Greek teachers. Yet those notable people never described as Greek. Articles about notable figures are written the way which ascribes them to the country where they were born and worked (worked for). This requires no proof, actually. DenisRS (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope the compromise version is acceptable for you - although "Russian" has {{cn}} tag, as I was unable to find any sources supporting it. And as I just found, von Baer himself considered himself to be Estonian - [5] - "On his graduate diploma he gave his nationality as 'Esthono' - Estonian." (p 248).

Also, birth and death places are given in English Wikipedia as geographic areas, not political entities. The latter may change, while the area is always the same. There was a long discussion about the topic before the decision was made.

I think I will try to improve von Baer article to GA status, but not anytime soon as I have two other articles I want to get to GA status first.

1) I am sure that there is still misunderstanding. "Russian" here can not be confronted to "Estonian" or "Baltic German" because Russian is not nationality, but pointer from which country Baer came and where he mostly served/worked (hence the actual link refers to Russian Empire, which is not nationality). Aaron Copland could think of himself as Jew (and he thought so), but this does not change the fact that he is American composer. The same is that it is irrelevant what Napoleon I or Katherine the Great thought of themselves. They are an Italian and German, but this can not be confronted to those two being French and Russian political figures. DenisRS (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

2) on birth/death places: please see Alexander the Great, for example. At no place it says he was born in Greece -- because there was no Greece then. Alexander was born in Macedon (which is currently part of Greece). Katherine the Great also was not born in Germany, because there was no such country yet; the article puts it accordingly. Since there was no either Estonia or something like Balticgermanland, there is no other variant than calling Baer as Russian (as **everywhere** in articles, meaning political entity of the time of birth/work) biologist of Baltic German ethniticy. DenisRS (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Area of Estonia has existed and been habitable since the end of the last ice age. It has been known as Estonia for a very, very long time - Republic of Estonia is a different concept, in the same way as Russian Empire and Russia are different concepts. Out of curiosity, I went over all 18 Karl Ernst von Baer articles in different Wikipedias - in total there was one (Norwegian, I think) that called him a Russian biologist. All the other wikis had varying labels - Baltic, Baltic-German (most of them), Estonian, German.

Since in the scientific literature he is uniformly referred as "Baltic German naturalist", I think that the current version, Baltic German naturalist from the Russian Empire" is the best, as it both follows the sources and clearly states that he was born in the Russian Empire.

I will re-write the lede completely when I give the article an overhaul for GA - probably not before September or even later. If you don't mind, I will ask your input about it then as well?

Thanks; the current edition does not confuse readers, because it states clearly both Baer's ethnicity and the country which he belonged to. The exact sequence of words is not that principal. However, it would better be phrased to avoid "*from* Russian Empire" sequence, because it phrased as if Baer moved to Baltic Germany. More accurate to replace "from" with "of".

As to possibility of input, this depends on which area you might be interested developing (I am limited in the variety of subjects I can cover because not every area is of my experience and interest), so I could see if I can contribute summaries on some of the rest of Baer's researches or not. DenisRS (talk) 10:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

What indeed is "pointy" is this comment of yours. There is official verdict that the death was involuntary manslaughter. You try to act as if this fact is POV. So do not even try tell me to "stop" unless you go to JFK article and edit out the part that related to way he had died to something like "Kenneday has died of bullet" and write to that article editors that their writing about JFK being killed is "pointy".

The fact that his doctor has been convicted of involuntary manslaughter has no relevance to the point. He died. How he died is a wholly separate matter. If he was known only for dying - like one of the victims of Jack the Ripper then 'murdered' might be appropriate in the lede. But he was actually quite well known before that. Had he been shot, like John Lennon, then it might also be appropriate (though in fact his death is not even mentioned in the current lede), but "involuntary manslaughter" is rather a convoluted concept which would just be confusing in the lede. Paul B (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we're missing the point. The lead already has the cause of death and right after it Murray's conviction for involuntary manslaughter. It's quite complete and well-worded. There's nothing particularly confusing about "involuntary manslaughter". However, the phrase "involuntarily killed" to somehow capture what involuntary manslaughter means, simply because manslaughter isn't a verb, is not only confusing but wrong--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Michael Jackson. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the edit you discuss in your edit summary, you are gutting the article, removing a tremendous amount of material without explanation.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about removing tremendous amount of material. I never copy-paste the article in whole, and the last time I just undid the vandalism by other person via built-function.

The part that I discuss in the summary is factual. So there is no way double standards will be allowed. The cause of death is defined, the verdict is pronounced.

To be sure that there is no glitch with the standard "Undo" function, I will use only direct edits from now on once anyone will try to state that either MJ or JFK just "has died" -- to make sure other parts of the article are not touched. DenisRS (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you discuss your edits at the talk page and get consensus for the changes. On a casual read, the introduction to the Jackson article clearly states that after his death, the physician was charged and convicted for involuntary manslaugher, so changing "died" to "was involuntarily manslaughtered" is both awkward and redundant. As the reverts have proven your change to be controversial, you will need to get consensus of editors before making the changes. —C.Fred (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Since when factual edits need consensus? The phrase that Jackson "has died of ..." was perfectly correct for more than two years until just few days ago, but now the fact is established. Just because few people like to ignore the fact and think that the article is their own property, it does not mean factual edition all of sudden needs a "consensus" to be done.

For now, we have situation where the edition with the mention of established fact is reverted to the state where article presents information as if the fact does not exist. If the reason is that the edition somehow destroys other parts of the article, then it is understandable. But if it is related to the part I edited, then there is no way how "consensus" could be done about that, because this is not question about merging paragraphs or whatever purely editorial, stylistic, taste-related decision. It is just fact and that is it.

And the way how somewhere below the article states that the physician was convicted is really roundabout way to convene simple outright fact. WP:Clarity just screams.

Also, the dictionary does not have the word "manslaughtered", so my edition of the phrase uses proper general word "involuntary killed ...". DenisRS (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Denis, please look at your first edit. Scroll down and look at the removed material (goes on for pages). Perhaps it was unintentional, but it's what you did, and every time you try to restore your edit, you do it again.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

If my edit somehow erased parts of article, then I am sorry; this definitely was not intentional. I only tried to update one place of the article according to freshly established fact. I was surprised that the article still was not updated properly after already few days have passed since the verdict. The way how somewhere below the article states that the physician was convicted is really roundabout way to convene simple outright the fact. DenisRS (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

How about if we call it involuntary articleslaughter?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I did not kill the article completely, though. So "involuntary articlecrippling" would be more accurate. DenisRS (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I will take a pause from now for this issue of the article being crippled by one of my edits to be separated from the actual edit that needs to be done ([WP:Clarity] cries with the lengths that current edition goes instead of citing the newly established fact outright). DenisRS (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)